how much to buy in for?

[mikever]

Just learn to play right and buy in for the full amount. When i see a short stack player, my first thought is weak player. And I'm usually right.

Shortstack strategy seems like a crutch for a weak player, IMO

[AlienBoy]

I am just now moving from limit to NL, so I am still developing my opinion here - but I always do a full buy in.


Money is the fuel of poker - and you have to have enough to power around and make moves.

I should mention that I am more laggish than taggish, and act the bully at times.

Maybe short stacks work if you play super tight - and indeed I'm tighter when I first buy in until I build it up.

But deliberately shorting yourself seems like shooting yourself in the foot while being chased down by a bear!


AB

[mikever]

Yah, you know Ed is a big advocate for short stack play. And he recommends it to knew players. But it seems to me like it is a training wheels kind of poker, where one day you will be good enough to buy in for the full amount.

You by in short stack so that you can get your hand all in and double up with a decent hand when a big stack ends up calling down with a weaker hand simply because you are the short stack and your implied threat is reduced. But there are at least two problems with that as i see it:

1. What do you do once you have doubled up. Leave? Start playing the "right" way?

2. When you become a good player, you have a resonable chance to be able to get all in with the nuts against a weaker player who has you covered. If you're short stacked, you miss out on a wealth of money. Some people argue you should play short stacked until you become a better player. But how are you going to become a better player when you are only focusing on short stack strategy all the time?

At some point, you are just gonna have to learn to play with a full stack. Am i wrong?

For new players, who are inevitibly going to be losing pretty often when they start out, I'd say just play very low stakes, but buy in for the full amount. That way, you can learn without losing too much money at once.

[King Spew]

I am not a fan of starting play without 100BB. However I do see an advantage for newer, beginning players AND some others with a common leak.

If you are the type of player that wins alot of small pots, but loses the big ones, short stacking is one of the best strategies. You don't have to play Ed's SS strat either. Just keep playing your "regular" game.... win all the small hands the same way. However as you are learning NOT to lose the Big Hands, if you do, they will be less costly.

[AlienBoy]

For what it's worth, the buy in cap on most Los Angeles live games is about 25 to 30 BB. I feel crippled till I get up to at least 75 to 100 BB.


AB

[Acein8ter]

When you get dealt AA/KK, you want as much money going into the pot PF as you can. Buy in for the max... If you dip below due to a few loosing hands, rebuy for the max. When you hit your hand, and someone has 2nd best that is willing to pay you off, you want to take as much of his stack as possible.

[sosorry]

do whats comfortable to you, each method has its pros and cons.

I think it's kinda fun shortstackin it sometimes, you would be surprised at the amount of bad calls people make. Noone respects a shortstack, especially the guys sitting on 2x the max buyin.

If you are concerned about losin yer BR at NL25 then maybe you should try out NL10 with a full stack until you are more comfortable.

[Rook]

[ QUOTE ]
For new players, who are inevitibly going to be losing pretty often when they start out, I'd say just play very low stakes, but buy in for the full amount. That way, you can learn without losing too much money at once.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mikever wins this thread with this advice right here. Playing shortstacked is a crutch, and will hinder your learning curve. If you can't handle big stacked NL play, drop down in limits till you can. You'll have the same benefit of losing less, but now you can play big stack strategy, and learn how to really play poker.